Weeks after Charlie Kirk's assassination in September 2025, social media erupted with claims that the conservative commentator had secretly subscribed to a trans influencer's OnlyFans account and spent £22,640 ($30,000), allegedly using his legal name.
Jade Trap Girl, the influencer at the centre of the allegations, posted on Instagram that she had the 'receipts', fuelling further online debate.
The Allegations and Viral Reaction
The story began circulating several weeks after Kirk's death and quickly went viral as users highlighted what they described as irony and hypocrisy. The claims alleged that a prominent conservative figure had financially supported content from a creator at odds with his publicly stated views.
Numerous posts shared purported screenshots and framed them as proof, linking the purchases to an account supposedly tied to Kirk. Commentators emphasised that he had previously criticised OnlyFans and voiced openly anti-trans views.
Some social media users focused on the size of the alleged transaction, £22,640 ($30,000), as well as the suggestion that Kirk's legal name had been used during the purchases, speculating that the behaviour contradicted his public persona.
Technical Red Flags
Despite the viral attention, key technical issues cast doubt on the authenticity of the claims. Under OnlyFans' privacy rules, content creators are unable to view subscribers' legal names or credit card information. Creators can see only display names, which are self-selected usernames that subscribers can change freely and which are not linked to any verified identity available to the creator.
The circulated screenshots appear to show only a public display name rather than verified account data. Analysts and platform users have pointed out that this information alone cannot confirm the identity of a subscriber, as multiple users may adopt similar or misleading usernames without revealing their true identities.
Investigators noted that legal names and billing details are visible only to the platform itself and the subscriber, meaning creators and third parties cannot independently verify who made purchases beyond the visible handle.
Testing the Legitimacy
Scepticism continued to grow after X user Jason Sawyer attempted to test the legitimacy of the claims. Sawyer said he tried registering a new OnlyFans account using the handle 'ownthelibz1776', which had been reported as the username allegedly associated with Kirk.
According to Sawyer, the handle was available at the time of his attempt, indicating that the username was not registered to any account.
This finding undermined the assertion that Kirk owned or used the account to make payments. Sawyer also noted that OnlyFans does not allow duplicate usernames, meaning that if the handle was available it could not simultaneously have belonged to someone else.
He added that screenshots lacking verified platform data cannot substantiate the allegations: 'OF also doesn't allow duplicate usernames, so the handle couldn't have belonged to anyone else,' he wrote.
A trans woman has been trending on social media claiming Charlie Kirk subscribed to her OF.
— Jason Sawyer (@foilmanhacks) November 27, 2025
Using OSINT I was able to disprove this.
The identifier "ownthelibz1776" (which is highly unique) has not been used anywhere else, this leads me to believe her claim is completely… pic.twitter.com/MdL1bDaTC0
Broader Social Implications
The controversy has sparked debate across social platforms about privacy, public figures and the reliability of viral allegations. Some commenters accused Kirk of hypocrisy without waiting for verification, while others urged caution and called for evidence before accepting the claims as fact.
The case has also reignited discussion about how rapidly unverified claims can shape public narratives once amplified through social media. While Jade Trap Girl's assertion that she has the 'receipts' captured widespread attention, no independent verification has emerged to support the allegations.
Media analysts continue to warn about the role of misinformation, noting that emotionally charged claims paired with screenshots can gain credibility even when technically unsupported.
Although the claim of £22,640 ($30,000) in alleged spending dominated online reactions, platform privacy rules and the absence of independently verifiable data suggest conclusions remain premature. The episode highlights the complexity of evaluating viral claims involving anonymous accounts, blurred digital identities and high-profile individuals who are no longer able to respond.
As the story continues to circulate, it underscores both the enduring interest surrounding Charlie Kirk and the power of online communities to shape perceptions rapidly in the absence of confirmed facts.
